@elhult
> One objective could be to generate text that is satisfying to customers. 🤷♂️
Haha, fair enough. It struck me that they had that sentence because they expected AI to be more specific, my assumption being that this definition came into being before the LLMs did, but I'm not sure.
> I don't think the term AI is very good because it is too broad. The OECD definition has that problem too.
Definitely agree that the term AI is really just confusing, especially since there are so many different definitions going around. The EU AI Act being another example which has lots of words but which really boil down to "something automated by a computer".
> do you have any AI definition that you like?
Not really, for the same reasons. I think we should divide whatever AI covers into at least 2 or 3 different segments. The fact that "AI" is also used so extensively in science fiction really just means that it's destined to give people the wrong idea.
In Moral Codes, Alan Blackwell talks about 2 different kinds of AI:
"The first kind of AI used to be described as “cybernetics”, or “control systems” when I did my own undergraduate major in that subject. These are automated systems that use sensors to observe or measure the physical world, then control some kind of motor in response to what they observe. [...]"
"The second kind of AI is concerned, not with achieving practical automated tasks in the physical world, but with imitating human behaviour for its own sake. The first kind of AI, while often impressive, is clever engineering, where objective measurements of physical behaviour provides all necessary information about what the system can do, and applying mentalistic terms like “learning” and “deciding” is poetic but misleading. The second kind of AI is concerned with human subjective experience, rather than the objective world."
This is a good start for understanding why the public discourse can be confusing. Especially when people point to the benefits of type 1 when one is critiquing type 2.
Source: https://moralcodes.pubpub.org/pub/1mn2q39n/release/6
Tagged: reply
@dcm
I was thinking from a user perspective that a tool like ChatGPT does not have a clear objective. But with the interpretation that the user has some sort of objective then everything does I suppose.
I was struck by how different a general-purpose chatbot is from an AI built for detecting anomalies in x-rays for example, where the objective is very clear. My assumption was then that the definition was once written with specific applications of machine learning in mind.
@elhult
Maybe it's just me but I don't get the impression that ChatGPT has an explicit or implicit objective for example.
@rrwo 😁😂💸
The fact that you are on floss.social made this response epic.
@timmymac Haha, exactly. That’s identifying the real harms!
@ambivalena Ja, jag hade själv missat den i december så det kändes plötsligt jätteviktigt att hjälpa den att få spridning. 🙏
@bigbro It's a closed session, which I also think is key to valuable and open conversations. But I definitely want to share more of takeaways and learnings on my blog later.
@julian Thank you for sharing. This is my experience as well... at least a year of sorting things out.
One of my takeaways is that online platforms will have lots of settings for memorializing accounts or deleting them completely. But they aren’t going to teach you how to download your content and make it available to your family in a sensible way.
It will actually be an open discussion as part of the session, what are designers' responsibilities. I'm also thinking of books, music, playlists that are likely to get lost…
People have of course been talking about these things for a long time but I don't see any clear answers.
Designers at least carry much of the weight of consent, information and communication. My reflection is that this can generally be done in a much better and more proactive way. And assume responsibility and talking about it more openly is a step forward.
@JackEric The thought did cross my mind earlier but I kind of dropped it as I kept working on the presentation... but now that you mention it it actually makes sense to bring this up towards the end... things will go wrong and we will need to evaluate them.
@sy Is the image description the prompt you used?
@sy Thanks, would it be okay to add this as a comment to the post?
It's good to give the complete picture of how different tools will fare on different prompts. The uncertainty of what tool will be able to do what is an important insight.
@mia Thanks, fixed it now in the online version (it went out as a newsletter as well 😅)
This is a typo that several people have reached out about now, haha.
@isotopp Thanks for the quick feedback! 🙏
@deadsuperhero @BeAware
Glad someone else is testing with Akkoma. I couldn't find the account either.
@danhon Good evening.
@dkmj They had a lot of first-mover advantage and of course have always been children of their time... My perhaps biggest criticism is an unwillingness to grow, acknowledge missteps and to listen to other voices, even as they preach how important it is to make those voices heard. This is an interesting one on Norman:
https://www.fastcompany.com/90868431/the-problem-with-don-norman
I've personally found Norman better at reasoning around potential weaknesses in his own thinking (I've interviewed him twice) but then slowly realised that he never acts on that seemingly sensible reasoning. In his later writings he is essentially saying that he got a lot of his early stuff wrong, but when doubling down on a flavor of co-creation and 'reinventing design education' I haven't seen examples of bringing that thinking to his own practice.
Nielsen's work I've always had a hard time understanding why people latch on to. So much of it is oversimplification and bold assertions based on data that is rarely supporting the exact conclusion he makes. I also take issue with how often he talks about IQ in ableist ways, which definitely biases me against him.
@dkmj That would be awesome. 😁
@devolute
Haha, that is exactly how I felt on the Thursday that I read it. "This will break my Friday planning...", and it did. Thanks for sharing!
@ElleGray I applaud your image description. 👏
@datarama I've just added it to my Kobo reader. Next in line to read.